Construction of a Test Track

Tell us about your layout, where you put it, how you built it, how you operate it.
JFS
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby JFS » Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:13 pm

Colin Parks wrote:Thanks for your replies Andrew, Julian and Howard.

This also means that I cannot use Howard's, method of having loose-heeled switches.




Just before I consult my solicitor to pursue a case of liable, can I just correct a couple of misrepresentations please?

Firstly, I don't use "loose heel switches" - except where the prototype demands!! For my bullhead track, my switches are a replica of the prototype - there is a fishplated joint to the closure rails, and the switches are anchored to the stock rails by mean of Switch Anchors.

Thus:-

A Switch Chairs 1.jpg


(This happens to be an A switch trap point - hence the rail is not fully cut through on the far side where the fishplate is not yet fitted)

and thus:-

B Switch Chairs.jpg


... which is a normal B switch.

I hope the evidence is there to prove that these are FLEXIBLE switches and NOT loose heel switches and, should anyone allege otherwise I there will be writ!!!

Further, I hereby give notice that anyone claiming that they notice a kink in my switch / closure rail joints will be asked to provide photographic evidence. My Silk will be briefed should these not be forthcoming.

Perhaps linked to this, it seems that persons hereabouts are contemplating using fishplates to locate the heel-end of their switches, and whilst they are perfectly free to do so, when the whole thing turns out to be a disaster, should those individuals allege that they did so "because Howard Bolton does it", I will again be suing for damages.

If I could also add a piece of advice to any such individuals - use a track rivet as a pivot if you wish - but it will not last 10 minutes. I suspect that it has not be tried more than a half a million times in the past 50 years...

Meanwhile, just on your FB switches Colin, I think you are likely to run into a very serious problem due to the stiffness of the rail. Although you *might* succeed in getting a decent opening at the extreme tip of the switches, because the tips are so much more flexible than the rest of the rail, you will never get a proper flangeway through the minimum gap and derailment is the inevitable result. I think for this reason, in FB even more than in BH, designing in some flexibility is essential. My suggestion would be to not use such heavy bonding strips but to use wire - although the real thing does not use switch anchors, it should be possible to use a straight piece of 0.8mm N/S wire to link the switch to the stock rail at one of the positions where the prototype employs a spacer block - preferably the first one inside of the fishplate. The subterfuge can then be hidden under a plastic representation of the spacer block. Needless to say, I would cut the rail fully at the fishplated joint. It might be that the stiffness of the rail does cause a slight kink in the open switch in FB (but remember that they are longer than the BH equivalents) but that is much preferable to a derailment risk. Just in case anyone should suggest that this make it a loose heel switch, I give notice that my Solicitor is already speaking to my Barrister on the matter.

If I cannot persuade you that would work, then an alternative would be move the bonding strip to beyond the fishplate (though there is no prototype reason for one there) and then at least partly cut through the rail at the fishplate - I use this method where the prototype uses a loose heel switch but where there is insufficient space to engineer a pivot - thus:-

Sub Assy alignment.jpg


Must go - phone ringing, must be my Brief...

Very Best Wishes,

User avatar
Le Corbusier
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Le Corbusier » Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:40 pm

JFS wrote:
Perhaps linked to this, it seems that persons hereabouts are contemplating using fishplates to locate the heel-end of their switches, and whilst they are perfectly free to do so, when the whole thing turns out to be a disaster, should those individuals allege that they did so "because Howard Bolton does it", I will again be suing for damages.

If I could also add a piece of advice to any such individuals - use a track rivet as a pivot if you wish - but it will not last 10 minutes. I suspect that it has not be tried more than a half a million times in the past 50 years...


Yikes .... offending reference removed ... hopefully no writ issued yet : :thumb simply a misunderstanding M' Lud ... though I believe ignorance is no defence under the law :shock:

Head scratching starting ..... first Tony, now Howard ... what to do about a rivet :?
Last edited by Le Corbusier on Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
Tim Lee

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Colin Parks » Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:50 pm

Hi Howard, a retraction:

Oh dear, I hope I am not liable to be prosecuted for libel!

I have misunderstood the function of those fish plated joints and now realise that your switch anchors (which are not present in that form on flat bottom (FB) switches) stabilise the switch assembly. The potential for a kink between switch and closure rail that I alluded to was specifically with reference to FB rail and its properties. The bullhead switches that I have made act in an entirely different way to the flat bottom ones and, as you have identified, a FB switch made the way that I have, will bend in more at the toe than towards the heel. This, as you also say, can lead to a potentially insufficient flangeway gap betwen the closure rail and switch at about mid-length of the switch.


I have already tried to make the FB switch more flexible by cutting into the rail foot just beyond the bonding strip. It did not work as the rest of the rail remains just as stiff as before. As I have said in my libellous post, there is little information specifically on P4 FB track construction that I have found. This leads me to work by trial and [mostly] error.

Er, will this do M'lud?


Colin
Last edited by Colin Parks on Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Colin Parks » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:01 am

Hi Tim,

Here is a clevis. It is the forked part at the end of the drive rod (in this case) which locates onto the [clevis] pin, as shown here:

IMG_8726 (3).JPG
IMG_8726 (3).JPG (38.44 KiB) Viewed 1977 times


Having consulted my legal team, I can confirm that the clevis component is from an etch supplied to me by Howard.

Colin

JFS
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby JFS » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:11 am

All retractions and apologies accepted :D Attack dogs all now chained up. Seriously though I did want to (over?) emphasise that the use use of component like switch anchors and Exactoscle chairs is actually functional and not cosmetic.

Just to complete the picture, here is a set of switches which are loose heeled - you can see they are very different! The switches are pvioted by means of duchesse pins soldered to the web of the rail (by making a cut in the foot) which are located in tube fixed through the baseboard (all my track is built in situ). The pivot is hidden inside the heel chair. Conveniently, the pic allows a direct comparison between both types of switches in terms of heel ends and stretchers.

BUT these are only trap points and I would not fancy building a layout full of these things - they are much more difficult than flexible switches!

Loose Heel Switch.jpg


I will have a go at making a pair of FB switches over the next day or two to illustrate what I mean about using wire hinges.

Cheers,

User avatar
Le Corbusier
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Le Corbusier » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:52 am

JFS wrote:Just to complete the picture, here is a set of switches which are loose heeled - you can see they are very different! The switches are pvioted by means of duchesse pins soldered to the web of the rail (by making a cut in the foot) which are located in tube fixed through the baseboard (all my track is built in situ). The pivot is hidden inside the heel chair. Conveniently, the pic allows a direct comparison between both types of switches in terms of heel ends and stretchers.

BUT these are only trap points and I would not fancy building a layout full of these things - they are much more difficult than flexible switches!

Loose Heel Switch.jpg

Cheers,


Thanks Howard .... very helpful and much appreciated.

Tim
Tim Lee

JFS
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby JFS » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:38 pm

Colin Parks wrote:Oh dear, I hope I am not liable to be prosecuted for libel!


Well spotted That Man!

Now I know why your models are excellent (even if I did not before!) - attenshun to deetaill.

Very Best Wishes,

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Colin Parks » Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:08 pm

Thanks for your response Howard. The difference between the two types of switch are clear to see. Like you, I would not want to have many of them to install!

Further to the saga of the flat bottom switches, I have been testing out a switch assembly, checking the gap between the stock rail and switch using a flangeway gauge. The results look reasonably promising, as the clearance for the flangeway gauge at the narrowest position requires a gap at the toe end of the switch of 1.5 mm, only just wider than prototypical (4 1/4", is it not?).

But is the clearance on flat bottom switches at the toe end the same as for bullhead? Having studied internet images of [British] turnouts with flat bottom rail switches, it appears as if the gap is wider. Could this be simply because the same problem with clearance occurs the real railway as I have found with the model? Of course there are factors which cannot be scaled, but full size bullhead rail must be more flexible than the flat bottom equivalent surely?

Colin

User avatar
Allan Goodwillie
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Allan Goodwillie » Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:56 pm

Hello Colin, :)

It is wider I believe, from discussions I had with Richard Chown some time ago - he was writing a book which is now complete and we hope to see it published posthumously. as Richard passed away last year.

The loose heeled problem really raised its head on the Burntisland layout as all the pints are of this type given the period. They were built by using a single fishplate soldered on one side of the rails and the other soldered on one rail only. They functioned OK fr the first few exhibitions, but after a while each gave up and needed remedial work to get them working again. The answer was to replace the soldered hinge with a single ended one same as on the other side and a loop of phosphor bronze wire half buried in the ballast soldered in place. Given the distance from the normal viewer this has proved satisfactory and lasted at least 10 years of exhibition working, although not as sophisticated an approach of course.

"Sometimes a man has gottado what a man has gottado". :P :o :shock: :!: ;)

I much prefer the variations being considered by you both. I am using the hidden loop version on some of the loose heeled points on the Wemyss layout I am building just now. First train ran today at our Christmas get together!

Happy building in the New Year! :)

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Colin Parks » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:18 am

Hi Allan,

Your experience with loose-heeled switches and the solution that you came up with was very informative. Putting in sprung wire loops on the non-viewing side of the switch seems like a good idea. Presumably you were using bullhead rail. My challange is to apply some method of increasing the flexure of flat bottom rail switches without the result looking like a loose-heeled switch! To this end, I have experimented with the simplest piece of point work to be installed which is a trap point.

Having made a cut in the rail foot of the switch rail just beyond the last slide chair on both sides, it seems that there will be enough flangeway clearance when the switch throw is a minimum of 1.5 mm. Unfortunately, the epoxy resin that was used to fix the rail assembly down on this first trial fitting did not cure. It seems that the Evostik Control slow setting epoxy resin which I used, has a shelf life of 24 months from the date of manufacture*. I only found out about this fact when looking at the Bostik website to find out about the curing time of the epoxy - after sticking down the first switch! Having prised up the now rather sticky switch, another attempt will be made again tomorrow, should it be possible to find some 'fresh' epoxy resin locally.

* My epxoy was four yeard old.

All the best,

Colin
Last edited by Colin Parks on Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Le Corbusier
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Le Corbusier » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:35 am

Allan Goodwillie wrote:Hello Colin, :)
I am using the hidden loop version on some of the loose heeled points on the Wemyss layout I am building just now. First train ran today at our Christmas get together!

Allan,

If you have a spare moment would you mind posting some pictures of your 'loop version' technique on your Wemyss thread. I am having trouble visualising the configuration.

Whilst posting we all have a tendency to 'Typos' in the text ... I particularly liked yours .....

The loose heeled problem really raised its head on the Burntisland layout as all the pints are of this type given the period.


I rather like the idea of victorian navvy loose heeled bouts of hard drinking :D
Tim Lee

Tony Wilkins
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:57 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Tony Wilkins » Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:11 pm

Colin Parks wrote:Thanks for your response Howard. The difference between the two types of switch are clear to see. Like you, I would not want to have many of them to install!

Further to the saga of the flat bottom switches, I have been testing out a switch assembly, checking the gap between the stock rail and switch using a flangeway gauge. The results look reasonably promising, as the clearance for the flangeway gauge at the narrowest position requires a gap at the toe end of the switch of 1.5 mm, only just wider than prototypical (4 1/4", is it not?).

But is the clearance on flat bottom switches at the toe end the same as for bullhead? Having studied internet images of [British] turnouts with flat bottom rail switches, it appears as if the gap is wider. Could this be simply because the same problem with clearance occurs the real railway as I have found with the model? Of course there are factors which cannot be scaled, but full size bullhead rail must be more flexible than the flat bottom equivalent surely?
Colin


Hi Colin.
According to my copy of the 1964 edition of the Permanent Way Handbook, the opening distance at the toe of a Flatbottom switch blade was the same as for Bullhead at 4 1/4". (I have always used 1.5mm). The minimum clearance being at the heel end of the planing equal to 2".
I experimented with a B-6 Flatbottom turnout on Green Street decades ago and found as you have how much stiffer the rail is compared to Bullhead. I then took a look at what the prototype did. Whereas a Bullhead B switch has 6 slide chairs and 2 block chairs that allow movement, a Flatbottom B switch has no less than 10 Slide Baseplates to allow for movement. There are three different lengths of these P, P1, P2. One also needs to make sure that enough of the foot is removed from both the back of the switch blade and the inside face of the Stock rail to allow full blade closure. I slightly under estimated this on my example, resulting in the track being enough under gauge at the heel of the switch to produce the occasional derailment. I had to build a replacement switch blade as a result. I also make my switch blades and closure rails from one piece of rail for strength.
Flatbottom turnout.jpg

Just for information the slip switch rails in early Flatbottom slips had the foot of the rail reduced in width from 5 1/2" to 2 3/4" (equivalent to the width of Bullhead rail) to get round the stiffness problem.
Regards
Tony.

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Colin Parks » Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:03 pm

Hi Tony,

That clears up the query re. switch clearances.

Reading your reply further, I seems to have made a mistake in the number of slide chairs used on flat bottom (FB) B switches. I have allowed for eight slide chairs on the three B8 turnouts and one trap point (also with B switches) so far built. Where the bonding strips have been soldered between the switch and stock rail equates to the positions of the ninth and tenth slide chairs and beyond that is the joint to the closure rail. The bonding strips were intended to be partly hidden by the intermediate heel blocks.

The track was designed on Templot, so I must have misunderstood where the rail joints were meant to go. This could well be why the difficulties have been encountered with switch stiffness and clearance. If you had not told me, I would have never known this fact about the extra slide chairs being necessary, even though I have stared at the S4 News' pictures of Green Street (for hours!) and especially the shot of that FB turnout of yours.

So, from what you are saying, my switches are too short, so I cannot add the extra slide chairs without rebuilding each switch assembly, replacing switches with longer ones and reducing the closure rails accordingly. As a crumb of comfort, I did do the planing and filing of the FB stock rails like your instructions though. From my limited experience, fashioning bullhead switches is easy in comparison to FB ones.

However, this first piece of trackwork is only a trap point, so I might let the switch length error stand on that. Given a reliable adhesive, it seems that things will work mechanically now that I have devised a way of firmly pinning the stock rails into place. Whether my conscience will allow me to lay the three turnouts, now that I know them to be incorrect, remains to be seen...

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
Le Corbusier
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Le Corbusier » Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:39 pm

Colin Parks wrote: Whether my conscience will allow me to lay the three turnouts, now that I know them to be incorrect, remains to be seen...


:shock: :( ... presumably that would involve pretty major surgery :?:
Tim Lee

Tony Wilkins
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:57 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Tony Wilkins » Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:42 pm

Hi Colin.
Count the slide chairs in the above picture, there are only 9, which shows that none of us is infallible.
The base plates are C&L ST with modified BH Chairs and Slide chairs as that was all that was available at the time.
109lb and 110lb FB switches use 10 Slide base plates for B, C and D switches although the combination of P, P1 and P2s vary for each type.
Yes Flatbottom switch rails are longer than Bullhead ones. A BH B switch rail is 22' 6". The equivalent FB switch rail is 28' 6".
It would seem that even some of the basic information for FB track is hard to find.
I have some FB Turnouts and a single slip to build soon for my new layout project, so similar problems to solve as none of the BH filing jigs I have will be of much use.
Re Templot, did you change the switch type from BH to FB as this will make a difference to the template. The geometry is subtly different between equivalent turnouts. A difference I chose to ignore when building Green Street as I only had the Protofour templates to work from and only one FB turnout to construct.
Regards
Tony.
B-8.png

Bullhead above Flatbottom B-8.

Philip Hall
Posts: 1114
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Philip Hall » Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:17 pm

Colin,

Re epoxy adhesives: I have always had problems with quick setting epoxies. The likes of Araldite 5 minute always have turned out to be very brittle and devoid of the strength I wish for. Far too easy to just snap and break. Many years ago I saw a recommendation (it might have been John Dornom in MRJ) who mentioned Plastic Padding Super Steel and I have used this for most of my epoxy gluing ever since. It is quite gloopy when mixed (so it stays where it is put), is grey (so you can see where you have put it), and is quite strong and ends up not quite rigid and brittle, just a little bit ‘rubbery’. The very important thing about this stuff is buying the right brand. Some years ago the store in which I worked (Robert Dyas) started to stock some Super Steel, which was supposed to be the same stuff, except it was in blue tubes. It was cheaper (I guess why they bought it) but was much stiffer and nowhere near as effective. I found out later it was a different version, and the original was still being made in Sweden for the automotive industry. This stuff, in the yellow packaging, is still readily available from Halfords and motor factors.

I can’t use it for gluing tyres to wheels, it’s too thick for that, so there I use 5 minute Devcon, which is not as brittle as the Araldite version. For anything that requires real strength, there is only one and that is 24 hour Araldite. It has absolutely no adhesive properties, it falls off anywhere you put it until it starts to go off, but when it has gone properly off (preferably much more than 24 hours, more like 48 or even 72) nothing will shift it. It also has a teensy bit of ‘rubberiness’ which I think helps with things that are slightly moveable. I would think for things like tie bars it would be ideal.

Philip

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Colin Parks » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:58 am

Phillip: Many thanks for your advice re. epxoy resins. Based on what you have written, I shall go for Araldite, the idea of 'real strength' has a rather appealing sound to it. There might be some movement in the switch assemblies at the heel end which needs a tough but not brittle adhesive to do the job.

Tony: Many thanks for the picture of your FB turnout on Green Street and the detailed Templot illustration. It is obvious now that my mistake with the switch length came about because the turnouts were designed using the fast template function, then converted to flat bottom rail. Having considered the possibility of changing the switch length on the errant turnouts, there are many changes to be made. Apart from the switch length, the main difference between the two types of turnout that I can see are the spacing of the timbers as the rail joints are in different places. (So that makes my stock rails incorrect too.) Changing the timbering would require major surgery, with all the ballast aready completed. Added to this, I have already spent hours carefully soldering the stretcher bar brackets into position.

But there are some positives that can be taken from the track building so far: A dodge that has been a success in terms of increasing switch flexure has been cutting through the rail foot each side beyond the last slide chair. This gives enough movement and clearance for the switch to function properly on the one assembly positioned so far, despite it being 24mm too short! Pinning the stock rail foot along the planing length and by the heel has also proved to be very effective and stablises the assembly by removing any lateral movement in the stock rail, so there is no need to rely on the adhesive bond between the slide chair and stock rail web to mantain the correct gauge.

Colin

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Colin Parks » Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:28 pm

Despite the issues with under-length flat bottom (FB) switches, I have installed a trap point and some plain track either side of it. This has the short FB switches, which will suffice for the application shown here.

The stock rails have been pinned through the rail foot with 0.5mm nickel silver rod, which goes down through the timbers and into the base board. The rods were filed almost flush with the rail foot and can only just be seen on the stock rail nearest the camera. The rods have not been fixed to the rail, for once the silde chairs are fitted, they are fixed in place and completely concealed. The heel ends of the switches have been Araldited into place where the bonding strips and droppers are located. The strength of the bond is improved due to the fact that a small amount of Araldite has been placed in the holes where the droppers pass though the base board, effectively making a plug of epoxy resin in the top of the hole. The perpendicular drill seen here is being used to temporarily set the toe gap at 1.5 mm while checking for adequate flangeway clearance on the planing length of the open switch and the adjacent stock rail. Fortunately, there was more than enough clearance even though the switches are 24 mm too short for a B switch.

IMG_8739 (2).JPG


This next photo shows the completed trap point assembly, which is now mechanically connected to and operated by the sub-base board linkage. To some relief, the etched adjusting crank (from an etched sheet of components supplied to me by Howard Bolton) is quite able to take the strain of moving the FB switches. Howard designed these parts for operation on his Minories layout, which is all laid with bullhead track work. In the end, I decided to set the switches with both of them closed before fitting the GEL stretcher bars, reasoning (maybe falsely!) that when opening one switch, the other would assist its movement by trying to spring shut. The stretcher bars are permanently installed, though being risk-averse, I have made them deeper than Howard states in his article in the S4 News 181. As mentioned before, the sole plate under the switches at the toe end is also made from the GEL material and the timber that it sits upon was reduced in thickness prior to laying.

IMG_8742 (2).JPG


The rail fixings are Peco slide chairs and Pandrols. Due to the parts being designed for 00 use, the slide chairs have bases that are too long for P4, but this has the advantage of being able to trim the bases to make P1 and P2 bases from the basic components. The slide chairs were all cut to make half-chairs and were easy to fit.
Last edited by Colin Parks on Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:32 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 752
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Martin Wynne » Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:55 pm

Colin Parks wrote:I decided to set the switches with both of them closed, reasoning (maybe falsely!) that when opening one switch, the other would assist by trying to spring shut.

Hi Colin,

That's correct prototype practice, to spring one blade against the other. If you get it right, there should be almost zero force needed to move a set of points over, other than friction on the baseplates. Were it not so, it would be almost impossible to move FB switches by means of a hand lever. It's one reason for the preference for double-blade catch* points when using flexible switches. The single-blade ones were fine for the old loose-heel switches.

*p.s. please let's not have the endless catch/trap discussion yet again. Catch points are a physical object, trap points are an operating function. Components called catch points are often, but not exclusively, used to provide the trap function.

Martin.
39 years developing Templot. And counting ...

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Colin Parks » Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:16 pm

OK Martin, catch points they will be called by me from now on then!

Until now, I was not aware of an endless discussion on the nomenclature of these components. The catch points shown in my previous post are protecting a running line from a bay siding. Glad to hear my instinct about the switches was correct. There is indeed very little effort needed to move them.

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 752
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Martin Wynne » Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:38 pm

Hi Colin,

Every single time I mention catch points, on any forum, someone pops up to tell me they are not catch points, they're trap points. Image

Forgot to say, that's some fine track modelling in your pics.

Martin.
39 years developing Templot. And counting ...

User avatar
Allan Goodwillie
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Allan Goodwillie » Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:04 pm

Hi Colin, :)

this is all looking good and the care which you are taking will pay off for sure.

I will make sure my starters group will have a look at your efforts. They have had a look at Howard's work during our "Introduction to track building" meeting before Christmas. One or two may want to model some flat bottom and the work you are doing here is also inspirational for them. We are having a hands on session this next meeting in my workshop and they will also be having a look at my new layout which I hope to have working by then. (The first Sunday in February).

Keep up the good work. :thumb

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Colin Parks » Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:56 pm

Allan Goodwillie wrote:Hi Colin, :)

this is all looking good and the care which you are taking will pay off for sure.

I will make sure my starters group will have a look at your efforts. They have had a look at Howard's work during our "Introduction to track building" meeting before Christmas. One or two may want to model some flat bottom and the work you are doing here is also inspirational for them. We are having a hands on session this next meeting in my workshop and they will also be having a look at my new layout which I hope to have working by then. (The first Sunday in February).

Keep up the good work. :thumb


Thanks Allan,

The topic is turning into a 'how not to' kind of thread, what with the chinchilla dust and shirt switches! However, constructing FB track and especially point work has been an education. Once a turnout has been installed with prototypical FB switches, I might provide a summary of what has been learnt so far, which might be of benefit to someone.

Good luck with your layout running session in February, I am hoping for something to be running soon too, though maybe only a section of line.

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
Allan Goodwillie
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby Allan Goodwillie » Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:06 pm

Hi Colin, :)

to me the best posts are the most honest otherwise it would be a case of one person after the other reporting how wonderful their experience was and to me the whole idea of the forum is to be able to learn from each persons experience and I have tended to use it as a teaching aid for the West Group and the Starters Group that I am involved in as it allows the members to go over the methods we are using. I try to make it so that success is high and that if possible the things that might cause problems are understood and avoided - however amongst the members of both groups members have ideas they want to try out for themselves and of course that is fine as we will all learn from their experience - again a reason for following your thread Colin as flat bottom is something that we have not covered. Similarly Tim's thread is worth following if you are a starter as he has made and continues to make an effort to do the research and has started well by doing a test track before getting into the layout, one of the reasons I am sure why he is getting a good number of people following him. I met up with Tim at Scalefourum.

Some threads are counter productive but both yours and Tim's are fine and quite inspirational for those just getting started in S4. :thumb

The only time I considered building in flat bottom was when building Grayrigg as one side of the mainline was laid in flat bottom during the 1960'sbefore the other side being done. (Over the entire route),

However I had thought we might do mid 1950's and that would require the re-instatement of the second platform and of course all bullhead. As it has turned out we have early 60's engines and liveries. (My son has quite a collection of diesel locos - the last addition being a Co-Bo which is a beautiful runner. Maybe I could do a different version as an exhibition layout 2020/1? All the scenic elements lift off my Grayrigg layout including signals and could be re-used in a different format. So I am going to be interested in how you deal with the flat bottom.

I still have a long list of steam locos to complete, so from 2019 onwards back to a loco per month - I hope to have the Wemyss layout finished by the end of this year. :)

JFS
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Track Construction for a Test Track

Postby JFS » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:54 am

Martin Wynne wrote: Every single time I mention catch points, on any forum, someone pops up to tell me they are not catch points, they're trap points.


Well, go on then, lets not make an exception now! Have you ever considered Martin, that it might just be because you are mistaken?

"British Railways Track, Design, Part 3," (7th edition, 2001) provides (in its Glossary) the official description for both terms (Catch Points on page 245 and Trap Points on page 269). They are not synonymous, nor is one a sub-set of the other, and what Colin is making fit the latter, but not former term. I am sure you have that reference, but if not, I can re-type the definitions for you :D
I could have chosen other references (not least my notes from the School of Transport 40 years ago!) but I have chosen one about Trackwork, rather than about Operating, Signalling or the Board of Trade requirements. Or perhaps you can point us towards a better, officially published reference to support your assertion - in which case I will gladly shut up!

Just looking through a couple of Sectional Appendices, I see that they list the "Locations of Catch Points in Running Lines" and, strangely, none of them are in station areas...

Best wishes,


Return to “Layouts and Operations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest